No, no, he’s just a little elf prince. Never worked out a day in his life, no sir. Probably a vegetarian.

For you

Perhaps http://meninhats.com?

Theory of relativity. Which one is in the mirror is entirely dependent on your frame of reference.

I’m talking about situations where my meaning would become clear if I weren’t interrupted before I finished what I was saying.

It’s fine, though. I’m learning to front-load my main points. Instead of trying to say “Hey, I know we said we’d clean the basement this weekend, but I think it’s more important that I spend that time fixing the car,” and getting interrupted with thoughts about the basement before I’m able to mention the car, I try to say “I’d like to work on the car this weekend. I think the basement can wait.” Takes practice, though.

My partner does this all the time. Unfortunately, they’re often completely wrong about what I was trying to say. Suddenly we’re having two completely different conversations simultaneously.

Thinks she’s Sisko, but she’s Kai Winn.

Thanks for the info! I’m more of a Trek fan than a Wars fan, so don’t know much outside of the films, but I always appreciate a nice set of ship deck plans.

And the front between the “mandibles” is not a loading door. Factory spec has a lifeboat between the mandibles that we saw destroyed in the Solo movie.

Seems reasonable for both to be true. If a life boat is attached, the door leads into it. If not, a ramp can extend and it functions as a loading door.

At any rate, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this diagram floating around since before the Solo film came out, so it probably is a matter of canon marching on that it was created without the lifeboat in mind.

This is technically responsive, but I think you have a fair criticism. A single rule like this would be much more maintainable:

#content .grid-container {
	width: 90vw;
	min-width: 12rem;
	max-width: 75rem;
	padding: 2rem 0 1rem;
}

Obviously, media rules have their place, but not for something that’s consistantly a full width container like this seems to be.

I’m a new developer. Is that referring to page 123 of the in-house documentation? Version 12.3 of the code? I have no clue.

You’d have to call it something like calculatePersonalIncomeTaxPerTaxCodeSection1_2_3, but I get exhausted just looking at that. There comes a point where the cognitive work of reading crazy long camel case names is more trouble than it’s worth.

An explanation of what specification a function was written to implement is a perfectly appropriate comment. Could be improved by a direct link where possible. But it’s worth noting what that comment isn’t doing - specifying any implementation details. For that, I really can just read the code.

Barely an inconvenience!

deleted by creator

Gay men are men, trans women are women.

TIL every great work of literature is corrosive to humanity. Guess I’ll burn my bookshelf.

Ah, I stand corrected.

To be pedantic, Supermen was created by a pair of Canucks and The Boys is the brainchild of an Irishman.

There must be a better way to bankrupt a company than flushing your personal reputation down the toilet. He’s just dumb. No contradiction.